Talk:Shattered Stars and Stripes: The New Deal
Upvoteanthology I would like to nominate Upvoteanthology for modship in SSSND [[User:TechnicallyIAmSean|'Hail Sean, Khan of Khans!']] (Free potatoes) 18:42, April 15, 2015 (UTC) I second that. Spartian300 (talk) 08:07, April 16, 2015 (UTC) Up is legit. She helps out a lot on things, and is pretty enthusiastic as well. I say go for it. [[User:Saturn120|'Saturn120']] 19:25, April 16, 2015 (UTC) Wait, up is a girl? Spartian300 (talk) 19:37, April 16, 2015 (UTC) Spar, yes, upvote is a girl. Also I support her modship [[User:firesofdoom|'Fires']]ofdoom 00:14, April 17, 2015 (UTC) I second this. ;) [[User:Upvoteanthology|'' Oi mate, '']][[User Talk:Upvoteanthology|'' did someone say Texas? '']] TechnicallyIAmSean I would like to nominate TechnicallyIAmSean for Modship in Shattered Stars and Stripes: The New Deal, having experience with the previous games of the Franchise and sometimes, his witty personality. Graham Industries. Creating the future, today. (talk) 19:26, April 19, 2015 (UTC) I accept this nomination and thank Ace for nominating me. [[User:TechnicallyIAmSean|'Hail Sean, Khan of Khans!']] (Free potatoes) 19:32, April 19, 2015 (UTC) Daxus Inferno I'd like to nominate myself. I feel this game has too few mods to handle this many players and problems may soon arise. I'm a generally fair mod and mainly spend my time responding as NPCs, cleaning up ASB plots, and making sure the map is always up-to-date. Morgan Freemen but With A Lamer Voice (talk) 20:21, April 19, 2015 (UTC) I have like 0 athority, but I second that Bruh, this is a vote. You would at least have 1 authority. [[User:TechnicallyIAmSean|'Hail Sean, Khan of Khans!']] (Free potatoes) This isn't a vote, this is a fourm where people speak for or against potential mods. #PraiseRoosevelt. 20:06, April 21, 2015 (UTC) Requests for upgrades If you belive your nation should be in a different location on the tiers list, or if you think a city should be moved up or down, do so here. Issues I have some major issues with some of the Tiers. I'll start in order Tier 1 I don't think Ohio should be Tier 1. It's a Mid-West state with a notable center of industry and population but nothing else; their real power is that they vote super early. I think Ohio should be Tier 3. Tier 3 I literally have no idea why Oklahoma would be on this list. At this time it barely has a sizeable population and is being ravaged by the Dust Bowl. Oklahoma should obviously be Tier 5. Colorado also has no reason to be this tier. At this time it also had a fledgling population, no real industry, and the pains of the Dust Bowl I think Colorado should be Tier 4 Tier 4 Neither Dakota should be on here. No real industry and no real population, even to this day. Dakotas being Tier 4 are more of misfits than Oklahoma being Tier 3. They should both be Tier 5. Montana should also be Tier 5. Again, no real industry or population. Utah should also be Tier 5. It does have more of a population but it has few resources and most of the state is an unusable wasteland. Edge's Response The tiers is based off of how a nation would do in an algorithim'' if it had no player interaction'', which is why Ohio is so high up. While Ohio may only have a few centers of industry and population, it still has the fourth largest popultion at this point and one of the highest industrial outputs. Ohio stays in tier 1. Keep in mind that, according to the 1930 US census, Oklahoma outpopulated Louisiana, South Carolina, Florida, Washington, Oregon, and more, so to make the claim that it has barely a sizable population means that you must make the same claim for those nations. Also keep in mind the fact that the Dust Storm doesn't start picking up until this year in terms of gameplay. PBS states that there where 14 dust storms in 1932, but they began to pick up in 1933 when there was 38. This algo places nations where they would be as of Midnight of January First, 1933. The tier list in this game is comparative. The Tier list essentially takes each nation and says "Who would win if these two went to war with no major determining factors." So take Ohio for example. Pit it in a 1 one 1 conflict with any nation in tier 3. Assume both sides are stable, neither have popular revolt/other bonuses, neither have incompetent leadership, and that weather conditions are perfect for combat. You will find that almost always, Ohio wins the war. Of course, there are a lot of grey spaces in this tier list. The example you bring up with Colorado is a perfect example of this. Colorado could be in either tier, but because of the number of nations allowed in each tier, it was allowed in tier 3. If I made the number of nations in tier 3 smaller, Colorado moves down. If I make it bigger, other nations move up. The Tier list is desgined this way because if I didn't do it like this, only a few states would actually be decent. The way you want me to do it is to have it be more subjective than comparitive. Doing it that way would have New York, Pennslyvania, and Illinois in Tier 1, and then California, Michigan, and Texas in tier 2. Most of the nations would then fall into tier 4 or 5. While that may be historically accurate, no one would want to play that. And while I would like to make the game as accurate as possible, it's not going to last if it has no one to play it. #PraiseRoosevelt. 19:52, April 17, 2015 (UTC) Yeah, I'm Tier two! Spartian300 (talk) 20:09, April 17, 2015 (UTC) Oh wait, nevermind. Spartian300 (talk) 20:11, April 17, 2015 (UTC) Test post z The Oregon War (1934-193X) Californian Federation *Tier: +10 *Military Developement: 1/0=1*2.5=2.5 *Economy Development: 1/2*2,5=1.25 *Strategic Modifers:+12 *Motive: +7 **Strategic: +3 **+4 *Population: 6+8=+14 *Technology: +2 *Climate and Geography: 0 *Location: +10 *Special Locations: LA(4)+SF(1)+1 capital=+6 *Nations per Side: Cali(L)=+20 *Number of Troops: +2.5 *Recent Wars: 0 *Fronts: 0 Total: 89.25 Oregon and Friends *Tier: +2 *Military Developement: nope *Economy Development: 4/1=4*1.5=6 *Infrastrucutre: +2 *Strategic Modifers:+5 *Motive: +7.5 **Defending core for non-lethal I guess?: +5 **+4 **Washinton Motive:+3 **Modifier:+3 *Population: +2 *Technology:+0 *Climate and Geography: 0 *Location: +25 *Special Locations: 2 capitals=+2+2=+4 *Nations per Side: Oregon(CL) Washinton (CL) =+20 *Number of Troops: +3.1+2 *Recent Wars: 0 *Fronts: 0 Total: 78.6 Result 6% max 3% in a year 4% in 2 Disscussion Basically Cali can still choose to send more troops War of the Northeast (1935-19XX) Southern Front Coalition Forces *Tier:+1+2=3/2=1.5~1=+8 *Military Developement:3/2=1.5+4/2=3.5/.5=3.5*2.5=8.75 *Economy Development:2/2=1+3/2=2.5/.5=2.5 *Strategic Modifers:+2+5+5 *Motive:7.83 **Motive:4+3=7/2=3.5 **Modifiers:4+4+5=4.3 *Population:6+3=9/2=4.5+5=9.5 *Technology:+2 *Climate and Geography:0 *Location:+20 *Special Locations:+4 *Nations per Side:Ohio (CL) Indiana (CM) CoWM (CS)=+25 *Number of Troops:+2.5+1+2=5.5 *Recent Wars:0 *Fronts:2 Total:101.8 Michigan *Tier:+3.5 *Military Developement:1/2=.5*2=1 *Economy Development:1/2=.5/2=.25*2=.5 *Infrastrucutre: *Strategic Modifers:+5 *Motive: **Motive:10 **Modifiers:0 (Gov just came out of a Civil War, not going to be univiersally supported) *Population:+4 *Technology:+2 *Climate and Geography:0 *Location:+25 *Special Locations:+4+2=6 *Nations per Side:Michigan:+20 *Number of Troops:1.5 *Recent Wars:-3 *Fronts:0 Total:55.5*1.5=83.25 Result The coalition takes 22% in 2 years See below Disscussion So beacuse of the Popular revolt, The Coalition can now take 14% in 3 years and 17% in 4 Eastern Front Illinois *Tier: +8 *Military Development: +2/3=.66/1=.66*2.5=1.65 *Economy Development: +0 *Strategic Modifiers: +7 *Motive: +3 **Motive: +0 **Modifiers: +5 *Population: +7+2 *Technology: +2 *Climate and Geography: -0 *Location: +20 *Special Locations: +4+1 *Nations per Side: Illinois (L) +20 *Number of Troops: +2+2 *Recent Wars: NA *Fronts:3 Total: 44.65 Michigan *Tier:+3.5 *Military Developement:1/.66=1*2=2 *Economy Development:1/2=.5*2=1 *Infrastrucutre: *Strategic Modifers:+5 *Motive: **Motive:10 **Modifiers:0 (Gov just came out of a Civil War, not going to be univiersally supported) *Population:+4 *Technology:+2 *Climate and Geography:0 *Location:+25 *Special Locations:+4+2=6 *Nations per Side:Michigan:+20 *Number of Troops:1.5 *Recent Wars:-3 *Fronts:0 Total:57 Result Michigan throws back the attack Northern Front Illinois *Tier: +12 *Military Development: +2/3=.66/1=.66*2.5=1.65 *Economy Development: +0 *Strategic Modifiers: +7+5 *Motive: +3 **Motive: +0 **Modifiers: +5 *Population: +7+2 *Technology: +2 *Climate and Geography: -0 *Location: +20 *Special Locations: +4+1 *Nations per Side: Illinois (L) +20 *Number of Troops: +2+2 *Recent Wars: NA *Fronts:3 Total: 53.65 Wisconsin *Tier: +.5 *Military Development: 1/2=.5*1=.5 *Economy Development: +1 *Infrastructure development: +2 *Strategic Modifiers: +5 *Motive: +9 **Motive: +5 **Modifiers: +4 *Population: +2 *Technology: +2 *Climate and Geography: -0 *Location: +25 *Special Locations: +1 *Nations per Side: Wisconsin (L) +20 *Number of Troops: +1 *Recent Wars: NA *Fronts: NA Total: 63 result Thrown back disscusion This war is just Illonois Vs. Wisconsin. Neither Ohio or Michagan is involved About that. See, by invading Wisconsin while you're at war with me, you brought them into the war. Spartian300 (talk) 15:18, April 20, 2015 (UTC) Southwestern Front Missouri *Tiers:+2 *Military:0/.66=0 *Economy:2/0=2*1.5=3 *Strategic Modifers:+2+4-5-5=-6 *Motive:+3+4 *Population:3 *Technology:+2 *Climate and Geography:0 *Location:+20 *Specials:+5+1 *NPS: Missouri (L)=+20 *Number of Troops:+1.5+2 *RECENT WARS:N/A *Fronts:N/A Total:54.5 Illinois *Tiers:+10 *Military:.66*2.5=1.65 *Economy: *Strategic Modifers:+15 *Motive:5+4=9 *Popualtion:7+5 *Technology:+2 *Climate and Geography *Location:+25 *Specials:+5 *NPS: Illinois (L) Indiana (M) +30 *Number of Troops:+1 *Fronts:3 Total:70.65 Result Attack is thrown back Disscussion South Eastern Front Kentucky *Tier:.5 *Military:0 *Economy:+2/1=2*1=2 *Strategic modifers:+2+4-5-5 *Motive:+3+4=7 *Population:=2 *Tech:+2 *Climate and Geography:0 *Location:+20 *Specials:1 *NPS: Kentucky (L) *Number of Troops:+1 *Fronts:0 Total:51.5 Ohio *Tier:+12 *Military:1.5/0*2.5=1.65 *Economy:1/2=.5*2.5=1.25 *Strategic Modifers:+5 *Motive;5+4=9 *Population:6+5 *Tech:+2 *Climate and Geography:0 *Location:+25 *Specials:+3+1 *Capitals:+1 *NPS: Ohio (+20) Indiana (+10) *Number of Troops:1.5+2=3.5 *Fronts:2 Total:85.4 Result Attack is thrown back Disscussion Result Michigan collapses in a year This algo is irrelevant. Wisconsion was invaded to, so it should be changed. Spartian300 (talk) 10:31, April 20, 2015 (UTC) This algo factors that in. #PraiseRoosevelt. 15:17, April 20, 2015 (UTC) And why is my score so low? It should be better then that. I mean, the current government is seen as liberators from the UFM. Spartian300 (talk) 15:19, April 20, 2015 (UTC) Correcting a few mistakes I made. #PraiseRoosevelt. 16:10, April 20, 2015 (UTC) The only one too make gains now in Ohio against Michigan. Edge, be a good capitalist and supply me as well. Spartian300 (talk) 18:08, April 20, 2015 (UTC) Michigan attack on Illinois Michagan *Tier:2+4=6/2=3=+2 *Military Developement:1/.66=1*2=2 *Economy Development:3/2=1.5*2=3 *Strategic Modifers:+2 *Motive: +5 *Modifiers:0 (Gov just came out of a Civil War, not going to be univiersally supported) *Population:+6 *Technology:+2 *Climate and Geography:0 *Location:+17.5 *Special Locations:+4+2=6 *Nations per Side:Michigan (CL) Wisoncsin ©:+20 *Number of Troops:2 *Recent Wars:-6 *Fronts: 2 *Total: 41.5 Illinois *Tier: +10 *Military Development: +2/3=.66/1=.66*2.5=1.65 *Economy Development: +0 *Strategic Modifiers: +10 *Motive: +5 *Modifiers: +5 *Population: +7+2 *Technology: +2 *Climate and Geography: -0 *Location: +25 *Special Locations: +4+1 *Nations per Side: Illinois (L) +20 *Number of Troops: +2+2 *Recent Wars: NA *Fronts: 2 *Total: 76.65 result Counter fails. Illionis Counters in the South Illinois *Tier: +10 *Military Development: +2/2=2/1=2*2.5=5 *Economy Development: +0 *Strategic Modifiers: +7+5 *Motive: 10 **Motive: +5 **Modifiers: +5 *Population: +7+2 *Technology: +2 *Climate and Geography: -0 *Location: +20 *Special Locations: +4+1 *Nations per Side: Illinois (L) +20 *Number of Troops: +2+2 *Recent Wars: NA *Fronts:2 Total: 57 Missouri *Tiers:+2 *Military:0/.66=0 *Economy:2/0=2*1.5=3 *Strategic Modifers:+5 *Motive:+5+4 *Population:3 *Technology:+2 *Climate and Geography:0 *Location:+20 *Specials:+5+1 *NPS: Missouri (L)=+20 *Number of Troops:+1.5+2 *RECENT WARS:N/A *Fronts:N/A Total:66.5 Results Counter fails. Kentucky Crusades (Part of the Northeastern War) (1936-193X) Coalition counter attack Coalition Forces *Tier:+1+2=3/2=1.5~1=+12 *Military Developement:3/2=1.5+4/2=3.5/.5=3.5*2.5=8.75 *Economy Development:2/2=1+3/2=2.5/.5=2.5 *Strategic Modifers:+2+5+5 *Motive:7.83 **Motive:4+3=7/2=3.5 **Modifiers:4+4+5=4.3 *Population:6+3=9/2=4.5+5=9.5 *Technology:+2 *Climate and Geography:-5 *Location:+20 *Special Locations:+4 *Nations per Side:Ohio (CL) Indiana (CM) CoWM (CS)=+25 *Number of Troops:+2.5+1+2=5.5 *Recent Wars:0 *Fronts:2 Total:100.8 Kentucky *Tier:.5 *Military:0 *Economy:+2/2=1/3.5=.28 *Strategic modifers:5 *Motive:+10+4=14 *Population:=2 *Tech:+2 *Climate and Geography:0 *Location:+20 *Specials:1 *NPS: Kentucky (L) Virgina (M)=+30 *Number of Troops:+2 *Fronts:2 Total:51.5 Result 23% Max 11% in 1 year, 17% in 2 Pennslyvanian Invasion Pennsylvania *Tier:+12 *Military:3/0=3*2.5=7.5 *Economy:3/1*2.5=7.5 *Strategic Modifers:+2+5+5=12 *Motive:2+0 (Gov Nuetral, Rebels never adressed)=2 *Population:9+5=14 *Climate and Geograpy:-5 *Tech:+2 *Specials:4+3=7 *Location:+20 *capitals:+3 *NPS: Pennslyvania (20) *Troops:+2 *Fronts:0 Total:104 Kentucky *Tier:.5 *Military:0 *Economy:+2/2=1/3.5=.28 *Strategic modifers:5 *Motive:+10+4=14 *Population:=2 *Tech:+2 *Climate and Geography:0 *Location:+20 *Specials:1 *NPS: Kentucky (L) Virgnina (M)=+30 *Number of Troops:+2 *Fronts:2 Total:62.5 Result 24% max 12% in a year 18% in 2 Disscussion Probably the last war to use this algo. Uhh, the algo for my attack on Illinois should be Michigan + Wisconsin. And what the hell is wrong with Sat? He just got an alliance with Vat, now he sorta broke it? What? His turns confused me.Spartian300 (talk) 22:10, April 21, 2015 (UTC) So I am not going to bother because We are already on the second year of the war, so it would collapse anyway. #PraiseRoosevelt. 01:54, April 22, 2015 (UTC) Dust Bowl War Attacker *Tier: +4 *Military Development: +3/0=3*1=3 *Economy Development: +2/2*1=2 *Strategic Modifers:+12 *Motive: +6 **Motive:3 **Modifiers: +3+5 *Population: +3 + 10 *Technology: +2 *Climate and Geography: 0 (same climate) *Location: +10 *Special Locations: +3 (2 Capitals) *Nations per Side: +20 *Number of Troops: +2.5+5 *Recent Wars: -10 for Dust Bowl *Fronts: 0 Total: 75.5 Defender *Tier: +1 *Military Development:0 *Economy Development:2/2=1*1=1 *Infrastrucutre: 2 *Larger Economy: 0 *Larger Industry: 0 *Motive: +10 **Motive **Modifiers: +4 *Population: 0 *Technology: +2 *Climate and Geography: 0 (Same climate) *Location: +25 *Special Locations: +1 *Nations per Side: + 20 *Number of Troops: +1 *Recent Wars: 0 *Fronts: 0 Total: 67 Result 6% max 3% in a year 4% in 2 Disscussion I think Iowa might deserve popular revolt bonus, but that's up to the mods. Also, I'm not sure how development works for NPCs. Shikata ga nai! 23:43, April 19, 2015 (UTC) Who are you attacking here? West Virginia So I'm in charge of Virgnia, and I was invading West Virginia. But Pennsylvania, which I'm assuming didn't see that I invaded, asked West Virginia to join with them. They did join with Pennsylvania peacefully. I am opposed to this for many reasons. First of all, it makes far more sense for them to join with Virginia (which was randomly rejected), as we are extremely similar, and our only differences come from the civil war 90 years ago. Also, I invaded. Does this mean that I'm now at war with Pennsylvania? Or can I cancel the invasion? You could cancel. Best you do. You could also help me fight Ohio, and I might be able to help you gain some monies. Just go help Kentucky. Spartian300 (talk) 19:40, April 20, 2015 (UTC) If you withdraw, I can secure you an alliance and security with PA, with trade deals included. Plus, I'll grant you a county border if you do. [[User:Saturn120|'Saturn120']] 20:09, April 20, 2015 (UTC) So if both sides agree, then you can back out of the war. It appears that Penn is alright with back out of the war, so if you two reach an agreement #PraiseRoosevelt. 19:58, April 21, 2015 (UTC) Arguments against the Texan-Californian Union Alright so don't have a lot of time so I will just summarize my arguments for now. #Two Players as one nation has never been allowed in the SSS series, so one player here would have to give up there nation. As Up expalined on chat, this is two states forming one nation, not an alliance. Remeber that mergers like these have only ever happened on the final turn of the game. We have had players play as vassals before (See SSS1) but never play as a district in another nation. #The Larger economy (California) would be forced under a smaller economy (Union of the South). #It would break the game. These are the two largest nations West of the Mississippi and allowing them to merge would hand everything West of the river over to Up (remeber Sean would have to give up his nation). #Reforming the US in any form would be unpopular. Remeber all of these states left the US on there own terms, unlike the pervious 2 SSS games #Sets a precedence for 2 things: Vassal Spam and Multiplayer Nations. #Up's own strawpoll that she created (despite the fact that only the opinions of nuetral mods matters) voted no against the union. I also have rebuttals to Up's arguments presented in chat should they be needed. UNless you can convince me that this union is alright, then it is not going to fly. #PraiseRoosevelt. 17:06, April 21, 2015 (UTC) If we cannot both play, then it's a no-go. I'm not giving up my nation under any condition. So yeah, this is solved. Let's focus on some other stuff. [[User:TechnicallyIAmSean|'Hail Sean, Khan of Khans!']] (Free potatoes) 17:47, April 21, 2015 (UTC) Algo Reform So obviously, having done a few algos for this game, my idealistic approch to the algos was wrong. I will be refoming the algo soon. #PraiseRoosevelt. 20:37, April 21, 2015 (UTC) New Algo Prelude The new algo appears to be kinda defender biased and fails to acuratly reflect coalitions. As a result, I have decided to redesgin the algo I have decided to look at the most popular games and see what makes those algos good. This is what I have come up with Military Tiers Tiers will be completly redone to be more along the lines of AvA. There are 3 types of Tiers. Military, Industry, and Technology Tier 1 (10) *ASA *Pennslyvania *Ohio *Union of the South Tier 2 (8) *California *Illinois *Virgina *Michigan Tier 3 (6) *Confed of the Western Mississippi *Washington *Indiana *Oregon *Carolina Tier 3.5 (5) *Alabama *Wisconsin *Massachussets *Georgia *Missouri *Florida *Maryland Tier 4 (4) *Conneticut *Iowa *Minnesota *Colorado *Mississippi *Maryland *Tennesse Tier 4.5 (3) *Nebraska *Kansas *Oklahoma *Utah *Rhode Island Tier 5 (2) *All the Rest Industry Tiers Tier 1 (10) *ASA *Ohio *Illinos *Pennslyvania Tier 2 (8) *Union of the South *California *Michigan Tier 2.5 (7) *Virginia *Oregon *Indiana *Washington Tier 3 (6) *Massachussets *Florida *Carolina *Confed of the Western Miss Tier 3.5 (5) *Wisconsin *Georgia Tier 4 (4) *Alabama *Mississippi *Missouri *Maryland *Tennesse Tier 4.5 (3) *Conneticut *Iowa *Minnesota *Colorado Tier 5 *Everyone Else Technology Tiers Only 3 tiers here for now. Will expand as the game goes on Tier 1 (10) *ASA *Pennslyvania *Union of the South *California *Washington *Michigan *Ohio *Confed of the Western Miss *Indiana *Massachussets *Rhode Island *Conneticut *Oregon *Virginia *Carolina *Wisconsin * Illonois Tier 3 (6) *Alabama *Mississippi *Florida *Georgia *Vermont *New Hampshire *Maine *Tennese Tier 5 (2) Everything else Strenght This is a combination of Development and Nations per side *For a Leader, you take each Score (Military, Industry, Technology) and add it up *For a Military aider, take 3/4ths of the nations scores *For a supplier, take 1/2 of the nations Technology and Industry Score *For A vassal, use 3/4's of the vassal's tier before calculation Number of Troops Pretty much the same as before *+1 for every 10,000 troops Population Exactly the same as before Location Here is another major difference: *+5 For Defender * +4 for a nation who's core in on the border * +3 for for a nation who's core is near the war * +2 for a nation who's core is far from the war * +1 for a nation who's core is on the other side of the nation * This section is subject to greater reform Chance Take the one's digit in your edit count at the time you declared war. For NPC's use the ten digit in your edit count Strategic Modifers *Attackers Only: **Moderate Air superiority:+5 **Massive Air Superiority:+8 **No Air Superiority:-3 **Moderate Naval Superiority:+5 **Massive Naval Superiority:+8 **No Naval Superiority:-3 **Not Moblized (must be stated in turn):-4 **Superise Attack:+6 *Defender Only: **Defensive Line formed:+5 **Fighting in a familer territory (owned for more than 5 turns):+2 **Forces Preocupied (IE Fighting a war elsewhere):-3 *Both Sides **More Troops:+2 **Signifigantly More Troops:+5 (2-5 times greater) **Army Dwarfs Oppenets: +10 (at least 6 times greater Motive Slightly different. You may now have as many main motives as you want, but the scores for your main motives are averaged together. So if you have "Enforcing Political Hegemony" and "Counter Attack", leaving your main motive score at +6. YOU MUST NOW LIST WHAT YOUR MOTIVE IS IN THE ALGO Popular Revolt, Major Enemy, Total War Same as before Capitals Same as before Special Locations Same as Before Multiple Fronts *Leaders: **Leading on multiple fronts:-30 per front **Leading on 1 front, providing military aid to another:-15 per front of Military Aid **Leading on 1 front, providing supplies to another:-5 per front of Supplies *Military Aiders: **Your military aider is leading on a differnt front:-5 for front they are leading **Your Military aider is providing military aid on a different front:-3 per front of military aid **Your Military aider is providing supplies on a differnt front:-2 per front of supplies *Supplier: **Your Supplier is leading on another front:-3 per front they are leading on **Your Supplier is providing Military aid on another front:-2 per front **Your Supplier is providing supplies on another front:-1 per front Recent Wars Same as before Total Add everything Up Result Mods will handle this War on the Mississippi Confed of the Western Mississippi *Military:6 *Industry:6 *Technology:10 *Troops:+2 *Population:4+5=9 *Chance:+4 *Strategic Modifers:+5+5+6+5=21 *Motive: Attacking to enforce Politcial Hem (+5) Economic (+2) Strategic (+3)=3.3~3+4=7 *Location:+4 *Special Locations:+2 *Capitals:+3 *Fronts:0 *Recent Wars:0 Total:70 Tennesse *Military:+4 *Industry:+4 *Technology:+6 *Troops:+1 *Population:+2 *Motive:+5+4=9 *Chance:+9 *Strategic Modifers:+2 *Location:+5 *Special Locations:0 *Fronts:0 *Capitals:+1 *Fronts:0 Total:43 Result 23% max. 11% in a year, 17% in 2, 19% in 3 Disscussion This war was done Pre-Merger with Alabama.Should Alabama's player request, it will be changed #PraiseRoosevelt. 02:24, April 22, 2015 (UTC) Iowa's Invasion of Wisconsin (Part of the War in the North East) Iowa Wisconsin Result Disscussion Summary of the Results for the Northeastern war So things in the North Eastern War have kinda gotten muddy, so here is a quick summary of the current results *Kentucky collapses to Coalition and Pennslyvania forces on after this year. *Litterally 0 changes in Illinois *Michigan has lost 14% of it's homeland to coalition efforts *Michigan had a military coup and is some kind of military dictatorship #PraiseRoosevelt. 02:31, April 22, 2015 (UTC)